>
>>> -- With regard to notations (Section 4.6)
>>>
>>> These are language-independent symbols, designed to allow
>>> an easy re-use of the whole vocabulary in different
>>> languages. They are typically composed of digits,
>>> complemented with punctuation signs and other characters,
>>> as in the following UDC example:
>>>
>>> The wording seems to imply that notations are
>>> "language-independent" by _definition_, not just
>>> _typically_. It seems a bit stronger than the SKOS Reference
>>> formulation that notions are "not normally recognizable
>>> as a word or sequence of words in any natural language" [*].
>>>
>>> [*] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/#notations
>> Hmm. The language-independant here really meant, as explained in the rest
>> of the sentence, that the notation does not change from one natural
>> language to the other. Would you have a better term for this?
>
> Ah, I hadn't understood that, perhaps because it is not
> entirely clear that "the whole vocabulary" refers to the set
> of notations. Maybe the sentence could use the formulation
> from SKOS Reference and say
>
> Notations are symbols which are typically
> language-independent (i.e., not normally recognizable as
> words or sequences of words in any natural language).
>
> Or, to emphasize usability in different language contexts:
>
> Notations are symbols which are not normally recognizable
> as words or sequences of words in any natural language and
> are thus usable independently of natural-language contexts.
I'll take this one!
>>> -- I'm not sure the following is phrased quite right (Section 3.1):
>>>
>>> Had the concepts been assigned other information, such
>>> as semantic relationships to other concepts, or notes,
>>> these would be merged as well, resulting in completely
>>> new conceptual entities.
>>>
>>> The idea is not that some new entity would be _created_
>>> by merging asserted semantic relationships from multiple
>>> sources (which is implied by "resulting in new... entities")
>>> but that the _existing_ entity would in effect be overlaid
>>> with different associations and thus would acquire
>>> conceptually new meanings. Maybe there's a better way to
>>> put this?
>> True. I propose to replace the above sentence by
>> [[Had the concepts been assigned other information, such as semantic
>> relationships to other concepts, or notes, these would be merged as well,
>> causing these concepts to acquire a new meaning.]]
>
> Okay. Maybe "s/a new meaning/new meanings/".
I had already done the change myself in-between :-)
Thanks again for the careful wordsmithing,
Antoine